the cold hard scientific facts: 9/11 was an inside job
POSTED BY: antimason
UPDATED: Sunday, January 14, 2007 09:17
VIEWED: 15140
PAGE 7 of 13
wake up.. it was a conspiracy, there is no conceivable way that alqaeda, acting alone, caused all the damage that day.. its simply not possible. Norman Minettas testimony, along with tons of pre9/11 intelligence make it clear that the intelligence agencies had prior knowledge of the attacks, and at the very least abetted the attacks to futher the damage and remove remaining evidence.
how did building 7 collapse?
why was the CIA running a drill, of the exact same scenario of flying hijacked planes into buildings, the VERY MORNING OF 9/11?? what are the odds? but more importanly .. what was the purpose? to confuse FAA NORAD MAYBE?? where are the damn tapes if we're being told the truth.. video tapes, flight recordings, EVERYTHING?? its hidden away, classified, because THEY DONT WANT US TO KNOW WHAT REALLY HAPPENED!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I agree with this critique: i suppose the patriot act was just a spontaneous response to 9/11...
I agree with this critique: and homeland security
I agree with this critique: the Iraq war...
I don't know about this critique: i mean, granted it was all foretold in the 1997/2000 PNAC documents by the neonazis in office...
I don't know about this critique: but what a convenient tragedy to bring these plans out of the drawer and into fruition??
I agree with this critique: i mean.. Rice said we had no idea this could happen(even though they got a memo 5 days before)
I agree with this critique: and i guess Bush really is concerned about terrorism
I agree with this critique: and has as his first order of business to seal the borders huh?? right?
I DISagree with this critique: i suppose this whole SPPA agenda to create a pan American union is a conspiracy?
I don't see where the Bush administration has to be in the middle of the plot to knowingly take advantage of it.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by antimason:Quote:
Originally posted by Fletch2:
Sarcasm just makes you look like a loser and does nothing to advance your case.
i wish i knew a commercial airline pilot.. id ask him why he bothers going through flight school at all.. apparently its a complete waste of time aye?
If you continue to hang out with other losers then no, you wont get to meet interesting people. It's not my job to tell you how to increase your circle of friends but I believe taht if you stopped being a nutcase that would help.
However --
1) The hijackers attended flight school and tried to get time on a Boeing simulator. They had flight manuals for various kinds of commercial aircraft. So the idea that they walked into a cockpit with zero experience is bogus.
2) The difficult part of flying is takeoffs and landings something they didn't have to do.
3) It has been proved, on TV no less, that a complete novice with access to the autopilot can make a commercial jet go where he wants ONCE THE PLANE IS IN THE AIR.
4) Up until 9/11 aircraft crews where trained not to resist or antagonise hijackers. Prior to 9/11 most hijackers would have landed the plane somewhere. It was accepted that any action was better taken on the ground by trained forces than in the air by a flight crew principly trained in customer service.
5) You are an idiot.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SimonWho:
I have no problem with people who believe conspiracy theories except for those who keep propogating that which they know to be untrue or irrelevant in the name of "creating a counter-myth".
there are two theories about what happened on 9/11: one includes a rebel group of muslims, under the orchestration of alqaeda, and the other envolves members of the American military industrial complext. you have one variable, the terrorists... and then you have FAA, NORAD, Cheney in the underground bunker, the NYFD, the PENTAGON SECURITY SYSTEMS... youre theory cannot account for the massive failures on behalf of the governemnt; ours does. and our theory also gives a better explanation for the lies of Iraq, WMDs and 'democracy'
Quote:
Yup, the fire wouldn't reach the temperature to melt steel. But it far surpassed the temperature at which steel loses its strength. And if I see that inaccurate mock-up of the plane's wingspan one more time...
thats silly. your saying a few floors of fires caused 80+ stories to implode! im saying prove it? show me the physics.. its impossible. the plane alone damaged a few floors, not the entire structure; it would have caused a fragmented collapse, not a perfect controlled demolition
Quote:
What does it say about a person that they'd rather believe, in the face of overwhelming evidence, that it was the government of a country that committed mass murder rather than an organisation which identifies itself as being hellbent on destroying and killing Western nations?
it was Hitler and his Nazi henchmen who burned their Reichstag building, and blamed it on a political enemy, so that later he might become chancellor, enable fatherland security and all the other anti-terror like laws.. and galvanized his masses into one of the bloodiest wars ever. governments through out history have done this.. what makes you think now is any different, when the stakes are so high??
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
I don't see where the Bush administration has to be in the middle of the plot to knowingly take advantage of it.
It doesn't and that's where the theory falls apart. Huge conspiracies are hard to keep, the more people involved the greater the risk. This theory looks at the end result, is unable to believe that the actions taken on 9/11 could ahve brought about that result and then tries to construct a hypothasis that is a more "satisfactory answer."
Since the starting point is that something several orders of magnitude more distructive than a jet needed to be involved you have to introduce a huge conspiracy to explain it.
That is the point where most people turn off.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:So you have testimony that Cheney was reluctant to shoot down a plane full of innocent people. And that’s your evidence that Cheney wanted to kill thousands of other innocent people? You really have to be a true believer to think that this is convincing evidence for your case.
Originally posted by antimason:
the fact of the matter is, and no one here has any explanation for it otherwise, but Norman Minetta, secretary of the transportation, testified that CHeney refused to shoot down the aircraft headed towards the pentagon! see mr. Minettas testimony yourselves
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I know, I'm breaking my own rule here, but it's a slow day.....
Quote:
antimason wrote:
Wednesday, January 10, 2007 13:19
wake up.. it was a conspiracy, there is no conceivable way that alqaeda, acting alone, caused all the damage that day.. its simply not possible
Why don't you just come out and say ...It's INCONCEIVABLE.!!. That way, we could respond in Inigo Montoya like fashion, - " You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." Fact is, despite your incredulity, that is EXACTLY what happened. 19 highly motivated, well financed and trained men took advantage of us in a way that most of the general populace thought never could happen. Which is EXACTLY why they did it. Because we weren't looking.
Quote:That's been addressed, time and time again. Only you ignore the facts.
how did building 7 collapse?
Quote:You presume this is true ? Why ? Kooky internet web sites that offer nothing more than specious 'evidence'? What's so sad about dupes like you is that it diverts our attention away from what really DID happen. It allows you to ignore the evil that was committed against your country and to members of practically every nation on the planet.
why was the CIA running a drill, of the exact same scenario of flying hijacked planes into buildings, the VERY MORNING OF 9/11??
Shame on you. Shame for your gullibility and ignorance.
People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss
" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by antimason:
thats silly. your saying a few floors of fires caused 80+ stories to implode! im saying prove it? show me the physics.. its impossible. the plane alone damaged a few floors, not the entire structure; it would have caused a fragmented collapse, not a perfect controlled demolition
This right here is your problem. You are unable to equate cause and effect so you feel the need to come up with a more "satisfying" answer.
For the sake of argument lets take an idealised version of your world view. Lets say that in each case only one floor half way up the building fails. What then happens to all of the structure above it? Where does it go? Where does it's weight and force bear? That's the problem. As I stated before and you ignored high rise buildings are not massively strong, they are only as strong as they need to be, there is little of any over engineering. The thing can stay up only if every structural element does it's job. If some of it fails and forces are transfered to neighbors that are not designed to carry that type of loading then they too will fail and the result is a catastrophic failure.
It looks like a demolition because it is a demolition. How do you think they destroy buildings commercially? Think they place a huge bomb in the middle and blow it up? They do it by using explosives in key points to take out enough structure that the building collapses under its own weight. That's exactly what the plane did in this case.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by antimason:
if you believe that temperatures from fire weakened the structures, show me ONE OTHER INSTANCE IN HISTORY!
Antimason:
Here is a link to a fire report from a high rise building fire in Philadelphia in 1991.
http://www.interfire.org/res_file/pdf/Tr-049.pdf
If you look at page 19 of the report you will see this:
Quote:
"Structural Conditions Observed
Prior to deciding to evacuate the building, firefighters noticed significant structural displacement occurring in the stair enclosures. A command officer indicated that cracks large enough to place a man’s fist through developed at one point. One of the granite exterior wall panels on the east stair enclosure was dislodged by the thermal expansion of the steel framing behind it. After the fire, there was evident significant structural damage to horizontal steel members and floor sections on most of the fire damaged floors. Beams and girders sagged and twisted -- some as much as three feet -- under severe fire exposures, and fissures developed in the reinforced concrete floor assemblies in many places. Despite this extraordinary exposure, the columns continued to support their loads without obvious damage."
There are also some good pictures of the sagging beams at the end of the report. Now, I'll grant you that this builing did not collapse, but it's steel beams were also not exposed to direct impact from a airplane traveling at 200+ miles per hour and a subsequent explosion and fire of much higher temperatures. Despite these facts, the builing's steel beams managed to sag up to 3 feet in some cases. By the way, this builing was eventually demolished because the city could not sell it to anyone willing to renovate the bottom part, then rebuild a new top half. I ask you, why would they have to rebuild a new top half? Could it be because it was structurally unstable? I'm not even going to get into the structural differences between the two buildings as I'm sure you would easily get bored and quickly dismiss whatever I have to say about it.
-----------------
"There is not such a cradle of democracy upon the earth as the Free Public Library, this republic of letters, where neither rank, office, nor wealth receives the slightest consideration."
---Andrew Carnegie
"Doing research on the Web is like using a library assembled piecemeal by pack rats and vandalized nightly."
---Roger Ebert
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by antimason:
if you believe that temperatures from fire weakened the structures, show me ONE OTHER INSTANCE IN HISTORY!
Antimason:
Here is a link to a fire report from a high rise building fire in Philadelphia in 1991.
http://www.interfire.org/res_file/pdf/Tr-049.pdf
If you look at page 19 of the report you will see this:
Quote:
"Structural Conditions Observed
Prior to deciding to evacuate the building, firefighters noticed significant structural displacement occurring in the stair enclosures. A command officer indicated that cracks large enough to place a man’s fist through developed at one point. One of the granite exterior wall panels on the east stair enclosure was dislodged by the thermal expansion of the steel framing behind it. After the fire, there was evident significant structural damage to horizontal steel members and floor sections on most of the fire damaged floors. Beams and girders sagged and twisted -- some as much as three feet -- under severe fire exposures, and fissures developed in the reinforced concrete floor assemblies in many places. Despite this extraordinary exposure, the columns continued to support their loads without obvious damage."
There are also some good pictures of the sagging beams at the end of the report. Now, I'll grant you that this building did not collapse, but it's steel beams were also not exposed to direct impact from a airplane traveling at 200+ miles per hour and a subsequent explosion and fire of much higher temperatures. Despite these facts, the building's steel beams managed to sag up to 3 feet in some cases. By the way, this builing was eventually demolished because the city could not sell it to anyone willing to renovate the bottom part, then rebuild a new top half. I ask you, why would they have to rebuild a new top half? Could it be because it was structurally unstable? I'm not even going to get into the structural differences between the two buildings as I'm sure you would easily get bored and quickly dismiss whatever I have to say about it.
-----------------
"There is not such a cradle of democracy upon the earth as the Free Public Library, this republic of letters, where neither rank, office, nor wealth receives the slightest consideration."
---Andrew Carnegie
"Doing research on the Web is like using a library assembled piecemeal by pack rats and vandalized nightly."
---Roger Ebert
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME